How the New Emission Standard May Actually Make It Harder For Automakers To Achieve

Greetings Guest!

CheersandGears.com was founded in 2001 and is one of the oldest continuously operating automotive forums out there. Come see why we have users who visit nearly every day for the past 16+ years. Signup is fast and free, or you can opt for a premium subscription to view the site ad-free.

How the New Emission Standard May Actually Make It Harder For Automakers To Achieve

And now for something completely contradictory

Under the current standards for vehicle emissions, automakers have a variety of ways to achieve compliance. These are known as "compliance flexibilities" which allows an automaker to sell electric vehicles to off-set gad-guzzlers like SUVs as an example. But the recent proposal by the Trump administration to ease emission standards, will remove these flexibilities.

The proposal unveiled last week would freeze fuel-economy and emissions standards at their 2020 levels for several years beyond that. This would seem like a positive for automakers as trucks and SUVs/crossovers are selling like hotcakes. But the removal of this provision has automakers crying fowl, saying these help with global vehicle development. The heads of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers wrote a letter to Trump stating that the “flexible compliance pathways that pave the way for research and deployment in advanced fuel-saving technologies”.

“We are global manufacturers; to compete around the world, we must continue to invest in both more efficient internal combustion engine technologies, electric-drive technologies and fuel cells,” said Mitch Bainwol of the Alliance, and John Bozzella of the Global Automakers.

But there is a reason the government is removing those compliance flexibilities as it "existing fuel-economy program easier to administer and more transparent". This makes it easier for regulators and consumers to verify an automaker's claim. The current system is somewhat confusing, as thirstier automakers can buy into compliance by trading emission credits from more efficient ones. The trades and prices can be shielded from public viewing.

User Feedback

Recommended Comments

I get both sides of this coin, simplistic for politicians and the current administration that is confused by the way American as well as European and Asian auto companies are building and balancing the system. Then the OEM which wants the MPG to be put into static mode but keep everything else the same.

OEM's will have to adjust if the current system is rolled back to be this simplistic system and that will really affect everyone to meet the MPG when they cannot use EV, Hybrid or any other alternative fuel such as the CNG/LNG trucks the OEMs make and use to offset the gas guzzling pickups.

One does have to wonder why it would not be simplest to just freeze the MPG as the auto industry has asked till 2035 letting them get their alternative powertrain auto's out and get caught up. A pause would be good for all, but one has to wonder if this is also a way to reduce the headcount in government jobs?

Share this comment

Link to comment

Share on other sites

I get both sides of this coin, simplistic for politicians and the current administration that is confused by the way American as well as European and Asian auto companies are building and balancing the system. Then the OEM which wants the MPG to be put into static mode but keep everything else the same.

OEM's will have to adjust if the current system is rolled back to be this simplistic system and that will really affect everyone to meet the MPG when they cannot use EV, Hybrid or any other alternative fuel such as the CNG/LNG trucks the OEMs make and use to offset the gas guzzling pickups.

One does have to wonder why it would not be simplest to just freeze the MPG as the auto industry has asked till 2035 letting them get their alternative powertrain auto's out and get caught up. A pause would be good for all, but one has to wonder if this is also a way to reduce the headcount in government jobs?

Freezing the standards is a good start.

If this administration truly wanted to reduce EPA headcount, they can get Congress to legislate the EPA out of existence. For a party that has advocated smaller federal government since 1980, they sure are doing a surprisingly poor job doing just that. Only defunding and legislation will actually reduce headcount in an appreciable manner, unless you want to repeal the merit-based civil service and revert to a 19th Century Spoils System.